LAWS(BOM)-1996-9-96

JAYASHRI MALLIKARJUN VINCHURKAR Vs. MALLIKARJUN GURLINGAPPA VINCHURKAR

Decided On September 06, 1996
Jayashri Mallikarjun Vinchurkar Appellant
V/S
Mallikarjun Gurlingappa Vinchurkar Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE . Returnable forthwith. Mr.Rairkar, Advocate waives service for Respondent. By consent Civil Revision Application is heard finally at this stage.

(2.) THE Petitioner Jayashri Mallikarjun Vinchrukar and Respondent herein Mallikarjun Gurlingappa Vinchrukar are wife and husband respectively and they married at Baramati on 27-5-1986 in accordance with customs and rites of Lingayat community. A daughter Rama was born on 15-9-1988. It appears that there-after between the parties matrimonial dispute arose and the husband initiated the proceedings for divorce and dissolution of marriage by filing a marriage petition before the Family Court, Pune which was registered as marriage petition No.PAN 75 of 1995. The wife is contesting the said matrimonial petition and has filed written statement disputing the correctness of the allegations made in the matri-monial petition. The divorce and dissolution of marriage is sought by the husband on the ground that the wife is living a life of adultery and has illicit relations with other persons. It appears that in the month of June 95 the husband made an application before the Family Court that according to his information, the daughter Rama was not his daughter and, therefore, to find the paternity of Rama, the blood group of the wife as well as daughter be ascertained and other tests like HLA, D.N. A., finger-printing test etc. be done regarding minor girl Rama. The said application was objected and opposed by the Petitioner. The Family Court by the impugned order has allowed the application taken out by the husband and ordered that both the husband and wife and their daughter Rama should submit for necessary blood examinations as mentioned in the application para 4a, 4b, 4c to the Superint-endent of Sasoon Hospital, Pune and Superint-endent of Sasoon Hospital was directed to make report at the earliest.

(3.) THE Apex Court in Gautam Kundu, Appellant v. State of West Bengal and Another's case (cited supra) observed thus-